I'm afraid I am Kazanne, yes, because reading the first two pages of that thread is like some sort of bizarre deja vu.


I mean... :shrug: these could literally be quotes from the Jackson thread.


I even asked Livia outright if she would have said the same about Saville and she was uncharacteristically dismissive of the question. It turns out that's because she literally did say exactly the same things about Saville almost word-for-word. Consistent opinions at least, I suppose.

Savilles case is nothing like the MJ case, loads of people complained and the police and the BBC turned a blind eye, he was never investigated in life never mind by the FBI

Yes and yet people (mostly the same people) were still casting doubt on it. The thread is like a mirror image, I don't see how that can be denied, it's right there to read.

But them being fined doesn't take back what they did.

He wants laws to prevent this kind of thing being allowed full stop.

If someone has not even been arrested or charged with anything they shouldn't have their name and reputation trashed.

Money? Did Cliff Richard have people accuse him?

I don't really remember. I thought Yewtree investigations led them to investigating him for whatever purpose. I didn't realise someone actually accused him. :unsure:

That sounds oddly familiar. :smug:

Tbf you're plucking opinions out from the early reports of Saville. Actual evidence came to light which changed it all.

Multiple accusers but no physical evidence found and so the claims have (again) been dismissed as "definitely false" rather than "not proven" by many people.

Yes but the consistency of the opinions is relevant; the same people were saying the same things in the Saville case as they are in the Jackson case with just as much conviction, with the same arguments ("it's just because he's weird", "it's just because they want money") and they were of course completely wrong in those assumptions, as it turns out. I'd say that's fairly relevant, at least in showing that people should be a bit more hesitant in dismissing claims in that manner?

I'm not saying that people should think "Well Saville was guilty so Jackson must be guilty too!", that would be a false logic, too... I just find it odd that people aren't open to the thought though "Oh hmmmm I said all of this about Saville and I was wrong, so maybe I should keep a more open mind about this one".

I find it strange that people can be "so sure", wrong, and then "so sure" again.

Yes there were two accusers

I agree in principle but you could say the same about people "so sure" he's guilty. :shrug:

That is very much what you're saying.
Bad TS :nono:

True but all I can really say is that in my opinion, I think it's highly likely that MJ's contact with children was not "totally innocent" based on a LOT of factors. And I guess the pertinent point is, IF some evidence arises that shows that's incorrect - let's say they suddenly admit to lying or something like that - I would be far less sure if something similar was to come up in future. I find it strange that people can know that they were wrong once but still be AS SURE in another very similar situation.

Wasn't it a teenage boy Marsh ? Oh I'm not sure now,better get investigating :laugh:

I'm sure I know what I'm saying better than you do, 2S :hmph:

I'm saying that people were definitely wrong when they insisted that Saville's accusers were lying for money, so they surely should consider that they may be wrong again in saying the same about Jackson's accusers.

Everybody's only giving their opinions and perspective on what the public gets to see. None of us know. :laugh:

No, we saw two men who had previously lied ,going into very graphic detail of what he was supposed to have done and some very dodgy parenting, there ate too many conflicting stories in the MJ case totally different from the Saville one,I don't know why people keep harping on abut the similarities there are none,we had a court of law aquit MJ,not so with Saville ,so can we separate the two as they are not connected.

And I could say that people were definitely right when they insisted that Richards's accusers were lying for money, so they surely should consider that they may be right again in saying the same about Jackson's accusers.

You see we can play that game both ways.
So it doesn't help you going to a different thread and jumping at people. These are different cases, full stop, and should be treated separately and independently.

It was dodgy parenting because it was a dodgy situation

It was dodgy behaviour full stop. Even if MJ was fookin Santa Claus. D:

Yes it's dodgy to leave your child with a man who likes to sleep with young boys I agree because you should wonder why a grown man wants to sleep with young boys

But you can't say it's dodgy to leave your child because the situation is dodgy. It's dodgy full stop. Even taking abuse out of the equation they sold their kids to Hollywood for their own selfish materialistic reasons.

I am saying both

If they don't name them then they should be put on house arrest until trial or they agree to having their name released and are free ro move around until trial.